Its time for Bush to go, he was useful when we needed him, but its time for him to go.

Druid Allanon

03-05-2004 04:26 AM

Curry favour for his re-election? I don't think that's the response everyone's giving, are they? They are all angry at Bush now for 'insulting' their loved ones. Big mistake.

Astrotoy7

03-05-2004 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kylilin ..... he was useful when we needed him....

he hee hee

sorry, cant help but giggle, this is the guy that said,
* "100% of imports come from overseas" and
* "look at the kitty" and
* "we will hunt down those responsible for terrorising the people of the free world, now watch me make this drive[ie. when playing golf]..."

Wouldn't you if you were in that position? That being said, I do think we need to probably have someone else in there.

ZBomber

03-05-2004 10:08 PM

I don't see what the big deal is..... if you don't want to watch the commerical, then don't ****ing watch it. :confused:

dark jedi 8

03-05-2004 11:17 PM

but is Kerry a better replacement? anyway, bush needs to go, but in october we'll suddenly "find" osama and he'll get elected again.:(

TheHobGoblin

03-06-2004 01:50 AM

Time to smack some right wing in here...

Okay first off, I must take this picture from the collection thread...

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/...tfuliberal.jpg ...
secondly, I think he should win the elections, because IMO I don't think anyone from the primaries is qualified for it. They complain about Bush like little babies, yet I haven't heard anything from them that make me stop and think. Bush did that, before he became president. All I hear is "Bush hasn't done nothing, Bush says but doesn't do, blah blah, waa waa crap, why isn't my steak ready, blah blah, yadda yadda." I would turn to Jerry Springer to hear that.

Don't focus on bad mouthing the guy your against, focus on what your going to do.

The Cheat

03-06-2004 02:07 AM

you have to give GW credit though. just compare the U.S. to the terrible state it was in back in 1991

U.S. in 1991:
Bush was President
War in Iraq
Crappy Economy

U.S. in 2004:
Bush is President
War in Iraq
Crappy Economy

wow how things have changed

obi

03-06-2004 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kain
Republicans = Retarted Pelicans

Untrue. I am a republican, and I am not a pelican. Nor am I retarded, for that matter.

Well, I wouldn't say EXACTLY that i'm full republican, but I'm more of it than anything....

Anyways, even though I'm more of a republican, I still don't like Bush.

I plan on voting for John Kerry or Edwards.

BTW hobgoblin, did you know Bush is trying to bring back the draft? Do you know how unconstitutional that is? It's different if the enemy was in my back yard, but I'm not gonna be here if the draft comes back....

Also, just because someone is liberal, that does not mean they do not like the military. That picture has no relevance.

Uber_Saber

03-06-2004 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by obi-wan13 Kain and Hob and Uber, don't start a flame war...

Seriously.....try to keep the debate as civil as possible....

Sorry. *Bites tongue*

To be honest, this thread has mutated from its original form, which was comments upon Bush's attempts to use 9/11 as a basis for re-election.

That's pretty weak, to be honest. But then, he hasn't got much to use for re-election. Still, using that for the basis of re-election... you have to wonder who made that decision.

dark jedi 8

03-06-2004 08:12 PM

wouldn't it be better to use the saddam (sp) capture for his re-election? i mean he seemed pretty determined to capture both saddam and osama after 9/11. he should state the fact that he sorta came through w/his "promise" and that should show him as a "succesful" president who keeps his word. not that i care cus politics suck. (i was hoping to have clark go up against bush, he seemed the most honest. plus he's a military man and knows how to get the job done w/out pissing around):cool:

Kain

03-06-2004 08:27 PM

True, he could have used Saddam's capture as the basis of re-election campaign, but that would remind the families of those lost in the 'War on Terror', thus the same issue would be brought up. That, and his original intention was the capture Osama, but he took the silver medal in Suddam Hussein, and failed in rooting out all responsible for 9/11. All in all, Bush just picked up what 'daddy' dropped, not to mention his most noticable accomplishment is driving the economy into the dirt.

dark jedi 8

03-06-2004 08:37 PM

which is why i think osama will magically show up some time in the next 8 months, IMO. now that would be sad.

SkinWalker

03-06-2004 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin They complain about Bush like little babies, [...] All I hear is [...] blah blah, waa waa crap, why isn't my steak ready, blah blah, yadda yadda." I would turn to Jerry Springer to hear that.

Don't focus on bad mouthing the guy your against, focus on what your going to do.

Okay. Take some of your own advice :)

I'm going to vote. And... I'm going to point out the failures and evils of the Bush admin.
[list=1][*]The economy tanked.[*]Nearly 600 American lives wasted in a war we shouldn't have been involved with.[*]Civil liberties threatened by the very legislations that claim to "protect the American way of life."[*]Jobless rate is far higher than it could be.[*]No Child Left Behind is a joke.[*]Gitmo[*]Social capital blown among the worlds nations.[*]Pollution/environmental controls ignored.[*]Corporations abandoning the American worker in favor of 3rd world labor that they can have for pennies.[*]Illegal Immigrant amnesty that is causing a sharp increase in border violations along the Mexican border.[*]Harken Energy hpocrisy[*]So-called Tax Cuts[*]National Budget misdirection in 2004 State of the Union speech[*]Deceiving the American public about the Iraqi threat and the weapons of mass deception.[*]Step & Fetch attitude toward the so-called "religious right."[*]and so on.[/list=1]

Fire Bush. Vote Kerry.

Here's a couple of links that discuss the issue of Bush Campaign Ads Using 9/11, followed by a selection of quotes from each link:

The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage. [...] "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work.

"It's totally disgusting," said Dawn Peterson, whose brother died in the attack on the World Trade Center.

A White House spokesman defended the election ads, saying they emphasised Mr Bush's leadership at a time of terror. [...] "September 11th was a defining moment for our nation," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

BBC Washington correspondent Rob Watson says President Bush is campaigning on the basic pitch that you don't change leaders during a time of war.

"What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election."

"I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time," one woman, who lost her sister, told Reuters.

More than a dozen families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks released a letter Saturday declaring their support for President Bush and his use of images of the destroyed World Trade Center in campaign ads.

The “Open Letter to America,” signed by 22 people who lost loved ones in the trade center, comes as other victims’ families asked that the ads be pulled from the airwaves. The spots also show firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher.

“How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion. And I look forward to discussing that with the American people,” he [Bush] said.

TheHobGoblin

03-06-2004 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker Okay. Take some of your own advice :)

I'm going to vote. And... I'm going to point out the failures and evils of the Bush admin.
[list=1][*]Jobless rate is far higher than it could be.[/list=1]

Weren't you the person who told me there was no evils in this world?

Besides People who was effected by this, if Bush had done nothing. Those numbers would be five times worse. Every war can affect alot of people in bad ways yet if nothing is done, it gets worst.

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Bush hadn't done nothing.

Hadn't done nothign....aside from the gramatical incorrectness, that is equvalent to saying if Bush had done something.

I really don't see how your post in any way addresses any of the points that Skinwalker brought up in his though...

TheHobGoblin

03-07-2004 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ET Warrior Hadn't done nothign....aside from the gramatical incorrectness, that is equvalent to saying if Bush had done something.

I really don't see how your post in any way addresses any of the points that Skinwalker brought up in his though...

May I correct you

IF Bush had done nothing (I fixed the suffix) Anyhow I said if as you can see, so please read the whole sentence.
also I was talking about number 4

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 12:39 AM

You actually aren't correcting ME so much as yourself, because I did read your entire sentence. But that is neither here nor there.

The real point is that Bush took one of the strongest economies we've had in history, and turned it into one of the biggest deficits, and that cannot all be blamed on the war, neither can the 2.5 million jobs that were lost during the bush administration.

TheHobGoblin

03-07-2004 12:50 AM

Um may I say WTC were destroyed by terrorist, not Bush. That is why the economy is bad.

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Um may I say WTC were destroyed by terrorist, not Bush. That is why the economy is bad.

2.5 million jobs were not lost as a direct result of the WTC being destroyed. Especially since they were able to relocate the people who survived that ordeal and they could continue working in a different place.

TheHobGoblin

03-07-2004 01:10 AM

yes but many buisness lost alot as a result of the WTC attack. Thus some had to be Laid off

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 01:16 AM

yes, that is true, but not 2.5 MILLION people. That's my point. Bush has completely mishandled our country, and put us in a situation where, if he's still in office 4 years from now, I'm going to be getting out of college with no job to get, and my degree will just be something nice I can hang on my wall.

SkinWalker

03-07-2004 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Weren't you the person who told me there was no evils in this world?

Doubtful. My position on evil has always been that it is defined by the observer and often shared by those of the same culture. Evil is, however, subjective and not necessarily a clearly definable concept from one culture to the next.

Having said that, my intention is to define the evils of the Bush admin as I see it in order to share that information with others of my culture.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Besides People who was effected by this, if Bush had done nothing. Those numbers would be five times worse.

Honestly, I had to read that a couple of times to infer the meaning but if you are implying that Bush was responsible for the favorable nature of the jobless rate, which would have been worse if another had been President, perhaps you could explain the reasoning.

What actions made the jobless rate so good and what inactions are you sure that another President would have failed at?

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Every war can affect alot of people in bad ways yet if nothing is done, it gets worst.

Avoiding the war to begin with would have been a good start. Recovery from the attacks on NYC and accomplishment of the anti-terrorist mission should have been first.

TheHobGoblin

03-07-2004 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker Doubtful. My position on evil has always been that it is defined by the observer and often shared by those of the same culture. Evil is, however, subjective and not necessarily a clearly definable concept from one culture to the next.

Having said that, my intention is to define the evils of the Bush admin as I see it in order to share that information with others of my culture.

Honestly, I had to read that a couple of times to infer the meaning but if you are implying that Bush was responsible for the favorable nature of the jobless rate, which would have been worse if another had been President, perhaps you could explain the reasoning.

What actions made the jobless rate so good and what inactions are you sure that another President would have failed at?

Avoiding the war to begin with would have been a good start. Recovery from the attacks on NYC and accomplishment of the anti-terrorist mission should have been first.

First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller.
2nd We got attacked by terrorist, we didn't attack them looking for a fight. They have been getting slaps on the rist, I think after hitting the WTC means the slap didn't do anything.

SkinWalker

03-07-2004 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller.

I'm asking: what do you think Bush did and how much larger would those number have been?

Our country has the biggest net job loss since Hoover. Surely that cannot be blamed entirely on 9/11.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin 2nd We got attacked by terrorist, we didn't attack them looking for a fight. They have been getting slaps on the rist, I think after hitting the WTC means the slap didn't do anything.

Getting attacked by terrorists has little to do with getting involved in a war against Iraq. The only correlation is the fact that public sentiment blinded most to the fact that the Bush admin was taking advantage of the opportunity.

In addition, I don't think bombing Afghanistan back to the stone-age could be consider a "slap on the wrist." We effectively removed the Taliban leadership that was patron to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in direct and swift response to the WTC attacks.

That was where our focus should have remained: on the so-called War on Terror. Instead, we side-tracked billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq.

And yet, the Bush campaign feels it has the right to use the 9/11 imagery in its ads? As if the victims of 9/11 are the first concern of Bush? He's demonstrated that they are but a convenient vehicle to advance the neo-conservative agenda.

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller.

Any form or reference or evidence to back that statement up? Or you just throwing out guesses? Because, as I mentioned, one attack taking out two buildings in New York, even counting all the companies that were forced to downsize as a result (mostly airlines i'd guess) still wouldn't account for the 2.5 million jobs that have been lost since Bush took office. Furthermore, it's been, what, 2.5 years since 9/11? And we still haven't seen ANY turnaround. The economy still sucks and there still aren't any jobs.

Druid Allanon

03-07-2004 05:09 PM

Quote:

wouldn't it be better to use the saddam (sp) capture for his re-election? i mean he seemed pretty determined to capture both saddam and osama after 9/11. he should state the fact that he sorta came through w/his "promise" and that should show him as a "succesful" president who keeps his word

Yeah, well... but he didn't find the alleged WMD, did he?

rccar328

03-07-2004 05:30 PM

Gee...another Bush bashing thread...

Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation.

Besides that, how can democrats blame President Bush for using 9/11 as a campaign issue because it was a tragedy when they have no problem with Kerry using Vietnam, another tragedy, in his campaign? After all, many more Americans died in Vietnam than did in 9/11...and Kerry may have been a hero during the war, but his behavior toward Vietnam vets after the war was anything but heroic.

But that's my opinion...I'm sure all you libs out there disagree with me.

Kain

03-07-2004 06:05 PM

Yes rccar, it is sad that Kerry would use Vietnam, but atleast HE went. Where are Bush's war records? Oh yea, locked away in daddy's private library.

ET Warrior

03-07-2004 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rccar328 Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation.

It would have been if Bush had actually done everything he could to make sure that those responsible for september 11 had gotten what they deserved. Instead he attacked them for a little bit, but used the momentum to push for a war in Iraq that was TOTALLY unrelated, and in the end simply USED 9/11 to further his goals.

Originally posted by Druid Allanon Yeah, well... but he didn't find the alleged WMD, did he?

Ok ok, just because we don't find the WMD's doesn't mean they're not there. Just remember that.

Kerry talks about how he's sooo patriotic, he got shot, and went home. Yet, other veterans during that time, when they got shot, they wouldn't accept their Purple Heart, the still stayed to fight alongside their buddies. Although I know this doesn't have anything to do with the election.

OK, Bush helped us get through 9/11, did he not? He did, so doesn't he have the right to say how he helped us through? Just a thought.

wassup

03-07-2004 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
OK, Bush helped us get through 9/11, did he not? He did, so doesn't he have the right to say how he helped us through? Just a thought.

What is important is that the families of the 9/11 victims find the ads controversial and unappropriate. These people do not want to be reminded of the incident any more than it already has been. They have every right to protest anything that causes them sorrow, pain, etc. If the FCC has the right to limit the content upon the radio and TV, the public should equally also have that right.

American businesses added a meager 21,000 jobs in February, the government said, stunning analysts and shattering short-lived hopes for an end to the three-year jobs drought. The unemployment rate was stuck at 5.6 percent.

Even though the economy may be recovering, middle and lower class citizens are still out of work and without income, suggesting that the benefits of this so-called "recovery" are going to the upper class and corporations. How are tax cuts going to help when the people don't even have the money to pay their taxes?

MennoniteHobbit

03-08-2004 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wassup What is important is that the families of the 9/11 victims find the ads controversial and unappropriate. These people do not want to be reminded of the incident any more than it already has been. They have every right to protest anything that causes them sorrow, pain, etc.

Yes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them. He is merely saying that he helped us. Also, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them.

Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President.

ET Warrior

03-08-2004 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President.

When the economy is down it is the presidents duty to enact legislation to stimulate and improve it. Bush has accomplished absolutely nothing in the way of improving our country's current state.

Furthermore, I tire of the 9/11 card played every time our economy is brought up. The events of September 11th DID in fact have a detrimental effect on our economy, but since that time NOTHING has been done to turn things around. After 2.5 years, there should be SOME improvement.

wassup

03-08-2004 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Yes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them. He is merely saying that he helped us. Also, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them.

Who knows what he is trying to say. The key issue here is that the families are not comfortable with the ads on TV so they have the right (through legal action if neccessary) to take them off the air. There is so far not anything like this against Kerry and Vietnam, so those ads can still be run. Put ratings on the Bush ads or only air them during a certain time, but something needs to be done to comply with the famalies' requests. The Bush adminstration is ignoring the voice and consent of the people they are supposed to serve.

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President.

It is correct the economy is not entirely controlled by the executive. The Federal Reserve and the Stock Market have significant roles in running the economy, and they may not neccessarily be influenced by the agenda of the Bush adminstration. However, The President does appoint a Cabinet, or group of advisors, to oversee many major aspects of the country. The Cabinet members are influenced by the agenda of Bush and the Republican party, otherwise they will be replaced. As ET Warrior said, the state of the economy suggests that they have (a) done little to improve it or (b) are only just beginning to seriously plan what to do with the weak economy and jobless rate since the past few years have gone by. Seems like while the shepherd has gone out to hunt the wolf, he has forgotten to tend the sheep. (ok that was a really bad analogy...)

Also rccar, you may feel this "Bush-bashing" is getting repetitive, but sooner or later we will have to face the real facts (and failures) of this adminstration, so I suggest embracing this change.

SkinWalker

03-08-2004 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbitYes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them.

No, of course he isn't. But he's coming off as condescending and insensitive as ever, not to mention out-of-touch with his voters. Personally, I hope he keeps running ads with 9/11 imagery.

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbitAlso, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them.

Apparently 22 of them are okay with it. See one of the links I posted above.

Quote:

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbitI would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President.

I'm amazed at the spurious correlation that is consistently made by those to lazy to do a little critical thinking. 3,000 or so lives were lost in 9/11. Undeniably the single largest act of homicide ever committed in the United States. But consider that "more than 41,000 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes each year (CDC, 2004)."

One could argue that the 3k lives of 9/11 weren't the only ones affected and that relatives and other businesses were temporarily displaced as well.

But that argument doesn't hold up since the 41k lives lost each year to motor vehicle accidents also had families and many were business owners.

One could argue that many businesses were directly affected as they couldn't do business after the loss of the WTC's physical plant. But in a capitalistic society businesses rebound from such catastrophes. I would hazard to guess that real estate in the area of the WTC is still expensive and that business is thriving. I would hazard to guess that the businesses that existed within the WTC have largely relocated and are in operation.

Did 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC affect the economy? Without a doubt. But it didn't affect the economy in the way that Conservative Republican Apologetists would have us believe. Our economy can withstand the loss of even 3k lives and the businesses associated with a couple of large buildings.

What our economy has trouble dealing with, however, is a trillion dollar deficit and unfair tax advantages for the wealthy while the under-privilaged get enough tax incentive to buy a week's worth of groceries and see a movie. A trillion dollar deficit + billions of dollars fighting the wrong enemy is not a worthwhile reason to tank the economy.

Originally posted by SkinWalker What our economy has trouble dealing with, however, is a trillion dollar deficit and unfair tax advantages for the wealthy while the under-privilaged get enough tax incentive to buy a week's worth of groceries and see a movie. A trillion dollar deficit + billions of dollars fighting the wrong enemy is not a worthwhile reason to tank the economy.

Hell, I can barely afford the groceries, much less the damn movie.

Last time I went job hunting (during the Clinton admin when I was in High School[I've been working since I graduated last June]), I got several call backs(actually, almost all were callbacks). Wanna know how many I had last year? One.

At the moment, I'm stuck at a minimum wage seasonal job(oh, and the season ends this month, giddy), and I bet finding another one come end time will be a sad site indeed, and I blame Bush's ineffectiveness in recovering the economy after 9/11. I was a Bush supporter after 9/11, but after the war went on for about, oh 3 days, I realized what his agenda was ALL about; and for that agenda, see my previous post.

toms

03-08-2004 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rccar328 Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation.

I still don't see that bush did anything after 9/11 that any other US president wouldn't have done (except, didn't he not turn up for about a week to visit the site?)

Look at other disasters around the world and the reaction of the heads of state involved... what else could he have done?

Giving someone credit for doing something that is defined in the job description seems pretty generous. If by some complete fluke (or voting irregularity) a guy in a chicken costume had been elected just before 9/11 he would still have done exactly the same thing.... up to the iraq war that is.

I don't see other presidents showing pictures of themselves at earthquake sites as the bodies are pulled out in their campaigns.